+0
I need to hand in this exercise but I'm not sure about the analysis nor the grammar. If you could have a look at eat I would be really grateful! thank you all!

Explain the use of Generic Noun Phrases (or Noun Groups) in English by analyzing the examples.

There are several linguistic resources that help people express genericity. Down below, it can be observed several forms that can also express something different than genericity.
In the first pair of sentences one find two degrees of genericity expressed by the zero determiner and the presence of a count plural noun. The sentence Park rangers are available is more specific than Park rangers are brave. As regards meaning, while in the first one the reference is made to a specific place; in the second one, one assumes that the reference is made to all the rangers in general, it implies they have to be brave in order to perform their duty.
Two ungrammatical constructions such as The blood irrigates our bodies and A dingo is indigenous to Australia can also be found. Here the speaker is trying to express genericity, but the article the makes it impossible. Thus it would be correct, if it said Blood irrigates our bodies, implying all bodies; and Dingos are indigenous to Australia, meaning all dingos.
The last cases are Blood is gushing out of his wound and Blood is full of nutrients. Both denote genericity by means of the lack of article. However, the first one makes reference to the blood of some man, through the use of the possessive adjective his; and the second one to everybody’s blood. From this it can be concluded that the former sentence is more specific than the second one.
This exercise is an example of the system of qualification by which one expresses his or her perception of a thing or entity as a countable or uncountable mass noun, around two processes either relating to the semantic nature of entities which are lexicalized as mass or count or to the grammatical marking of entities (singular/plural, mass/count).
+0
Hi Eager,

I have run through and fixed the grammar, but have not had time to consider your analysis, sorry:

There are several linguistic resources that help people express genericness. Below, can be observed several forms that can also express something different than genericness.

In the first pair of sentences, one finds two degrees of genericness expressed by the zero determiner and the presence of a plural count noun. The sentence, 'Park rangers are available' is more specific than 'Park rangers are brave'. As regards meaning: while in the first one the reference is made to a specific place, in the second one, one assumes that the reference is made to all rangers in general, that t implies they must be brave in order to perform their duties.
Two ungrammatical constructions, such as 'The blood irrigates our bodies' and 'A dingo is indigenous to Australia' can also be found. Here, the speaker is trying to express genericness, but the article 'the' makes this impossible. Thus it would be correct if it said 'Blood irrigates our bodies', implying all bodies; and 'Dingos are indigenous to Australia', meaning all dingos.

The last cases are 'Blood is gushing out of his wound' and 'Blood is full of nutrients'. Both denote genericness by means of the lack of article. However, the first one makes reference to the blood of some man, through the use of the possessive adjective 'his'; and the second one to everyone’s blood. From this, it can be concluded that the former sentence is more specific than the second one.

This exercise is an example of the system of qualification by which one expresses his or her perception of a thing or entity as a countable or uncountable mass noun, around two processes either relating to the semantic nature of entities which are lexicalized as mass or count or to the grammatical marking of entities (singular/plural, mass/count).